But not for long, I did notice that Walmart in investing in automated check-out systems so it can radically reduce its need for cashiers. Yes, we really need to eliminate these poverty level jobs and get the poor souls off food stamps and on unemployment and welfare where they belong.

The Right Wing ideologues will never get it, but historians know. The only reason this kind of wealth disparity and this rigged-game economics are allowed to stand is because the propaganda (and the bread and circuses) are good enough to keep the blinders on the 90% who are getting ****ed. At some point, as it always does, the blinders come off. Who knows? Maybe Marx was right? Maybe the greed of the capitalist is incurable? All I know is, the mega-rich in America are sawing off the branch upon which they are sitting.

I certainly don't favor this kind of class war, as it will be bloody and extremely nasty, and once started, nobody can control where such things end up. I would prefer some form of democratic socialism that ensures every American a square deal, but given what I see right now, out of control capitalism and cronyism, I think it is inevitable. Like Warren Buffett said, of course there is a class war going on in America, "...and my side is winning."

What you don't realize is that it's often a sliding scale and involves a cost/benefit analysis.

If you passed a law tomorrow saying checkers had to make $25 an hour, Walmart would suddenly "not need" virtually all of them. And that's obviously not because the technology didn't already exist to replace them.

Automation isn't free. It has its own headaches. But the more artificially expensive you make the human alternative, the more attractive automation becomes.

And you'd look at the 2 or 3 checkers left behind making $25 an hour and say "Hey that's great!" Meanwhile, you don't sweat the 50 that got sent home permanently to effectively become wards of the state.

Technological replacement of labor is inevitable (it's practically my job description), but not today (and certainly not in the past).

But again, you're making up a bullsh*t definition of "artificially expensive". The simple fact is Wal-Mart operates dishonestly (currently and for many years) by abusing the public treasury to increase its already high profits. Why should we subsidize Wal-Mart's profits? What benefit is there to society to do that?

Just how painful is the cognitive dissonance of simultaneously complaining about people being on public assistance while defending one of the biggest reasons for increase in reliance on public assistance?

Does the fiction of thinking you're getting a good deal shopping at Wal-Mart have a side effect of and inability to think critically about the situation?

Still love the illogic of "paying your needed employees a wage that will allow you to retain them instead of relying on public subsidy of your compensation" == "artificially high pay"

Yeah. You owe them an arbitrary "living wage" or you owe 'em nothin'.

Can't wait 'til you guys get this stuff figured out. I'm going to become a portrait artist and demand my living wage. It'd be pretty awful. Stick figures mostly. I'm pretty terrible at art. But since we're not worried about whether the work is worth the wage anymore, I figure what the hell, you owe me.

Can't wait 'til you guys get this stuff figured out. I'm going to become a portrait artist and demand my living wage. It'd be pretty awful. Stick figures mostly. I'm pretty terrible at art. But since we're not worried about whether the work is worth the wage anymore, I figure what the hell, you owe me.

If I require an employee, I damn well better pay them enough to retain their services. If I don't, I'll go out of business.

Unless I can convince someone else *cough*taxpayers*cough* to help me pay his wage that is. Then I can have my cake and eat it too, and the expense of society of course. But **** society, greed is good!

The Right Wing ideologues will never get it, but historians know. The only reason this kind of wealth disparity and this rigged-game economics are allowed to stand is because the propaganda (and the bread and circuses) are good enough to keep the blinders on the 90% who are getting ****ed. At some point, as it always does, the blinders come off. Who knows? Maybe Marx was right? Maybe the greed of the capitalist is incurable? All I know is, the mega-rich in America are sawing off the branch upon which they are sitting.

I certainly don't favor this kind of class war, as it will be bloody and extremely nasty, and once started, nobody can control where such things end up. I would prefer some form of democratic socialism that ensures every American a square deal, but given what I see right now, out of control capitalism and cronyism, I think it is inevitable. Like Warren Buffett said, of course there is a class war going on in America, "...and my side is winning."

Uh that's already been tried. It doesn't get any bloodier. Warren's side sure is winning. The 1 percent loves Obama. Uploaded with ImageShack.com

If I require an employee, I damn well better pay them enough to retain their services. If I don't, I'll go out of business.

Unless I can convince someone else *cough*taxpayers*cough* to help me pay his wage that is. Then I can have my cake and eat it too, and the expense of society of course. But **** society, greed is good!

What's so difficult for you to understand about that?

Not sure if you're aware of this, but in the aggregate, employers compete for the most in-demand workers.

If you artificially inflate the price of workers in lower demand, you do two things. You drive up the wages of those workers actually in heavy demand. And you put the workers in lower demand out of work. Via automation, offshoring, etc.

Which only accentuates the income disparity, and renders whole swaths of people completely (as opposed to maybe partially) dependent on the state.

Wage inflation is not a zero sum game. At the end of the day, the government isn't paying those people. You are. You're paying the Walmart workers. You're paying farm workers. You're paying teachers, and plumbers, and on and on.

Artificially raising their wages means your wages don't go as far as they once did (and neither do theirs) As usual, the Democrats have a real seen vs unseen problem with this concept.

"More money is good, so let's mandate more money for everyone!" That's essentially what you're saying. What you're missing is the big picture about where that money ultimately comes from.

but in the aggregate, employers compete for the most in-demand workers.

Which is exactly what I am saying. Want to retain employees, you have two options:

a.) pay them enough to keep them from going else ware (what's needed in a healthy market).

b.) use your market power to crush the competition, making yourself the only employer option for lots of folks. Then boost your margins by relying on public subsidy of your payroll since your employees have no other option. Finally, convince average rubes that you're a net benefit because the number on your receipt is a bit lower for a few things (nevermind that their tax bill just increased as much if not more than the "discount") Laugh all the way to the bank in the caymens. aka, The Wal-Mart Way (TM)

You don't have to keep coming back and proving what a dumb **** you are. Nobody has any doubts.

Says the village communist.

The only thing good about Karl Marx is that he's dead. Since you haven't bothered to read any history books, let me be the spoiler. Communism led to at least 10 million deaths in Soviet Russia, and resolute poverty for the remainder of the non-ruling class.

Uh that's already been tried. It doesn't get any bloodier. Warren's side sure is winning. The 1 percent loves Obama. Uploaded with ImageShack.com

Stalin came waaaay after the fact. He was just a thug who was cunning and vicious enough to slash through the tiers of thugs above him until he could seize complete control. Like I said, once the **** hits the fan, nobody can control where it ends up. The Russians wanted to free themselves from a bunch of greedy aristocrats and ended up under the heels of bloody tyrants. That's why societies should be designed in such a way as to avoid extremes, especially the kind of ideological extremes espoused by the Tea Party brew of secessionists, moral absolutists, religious fanatics and anarchists.

Actually, our government was founded to, "... form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

It doesn't say anything in there about free market economies. In fact, it doesn't mention economies of any kind whatsoever.

The only thing good about Karl Marx is that he's dead. Since you haven't bothered to read any history books, let me be the spoiler. Communism led to at least 10 million deaths in Soviet Russia, and resolute poverty for the remainder of the non-ruling class.

Get a freaking clue, comrade.

That you think Stalinism is the same as communism shows what an idiot you are. I've given my views on the impractical utopianism that communism represents numerous times on this forum. But you don't care about actual debate. You're just one of those mindless little fascist parrots of the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh herd who can do little but fling names around while enjoying all the narcissistic delights of a juvenile scribbling on a **** house wall.

That you think Stalinism is the same as communism shows what an idiot you are. I've given my views on the impractical utopianism that communism represents numerous times on this forum. But you don't care about actual debate. You're just one of those mindless little fascist parrots of the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh herd who can do little but fling names around while enjoying all the narcissistic delights of a juvenile scribbling on a **** house wall.

Stalin was a tool that Communists used to implement their will on the people. As far as debate and Communism go. All the facts are there. It doesn't work.

No, it's not because of the "impractical utopia". It's simply because the ideals which Communism is against human nature. If people have no incentive to work, to create, to invent, or prosper...they won't. Communism is against human nature.

I know you're against capitalism. What you fail to realize, is that the U.S. Constitution has created the most free, prosperous, and creative civilization on the history of earth. Your perceived corporate injustices are primarily due to the inability of government to perform it's basic duties. Instead, the US government has chosen to deliberately create wealth disparity with Socialist policies (which will never work).